“Single Market” means “Remain”

The failed politicians like Anna Soubry, Nick Clegg, and Ed Miliband are at it again. Trying to force the Government to put issues regarding Leaving the EU for Parliament to discuss and vote on. Amongst the arguments is the one about how we must continue access to the Single Market or it will be disastrous for our economy.

Anna Soubry claimed that those who voted to leave did not understand that it might mean leaving the Single Market with devastating consequences. Again and again they are trying to confuse the issue by implying trade with the EU means a deal about the Single Market. It does not! The trade deal between Canada and the EU for example does not bind Canada to the Single Market baggage nor does it incur contributions to the EU or to free movement of people between the EU to Canada.

Remember the Single Market is a package including: Trade in Goods & Services, Employment Law, Health & Safety Legislation & Regulation, Environmental Protection, and Free Movement of People! It precludes Britain doing trade deals independently with the rest of the World. It also binds you to the supremacy of the European Court of Justice and being a signatory to the European Court of Human Rights.

Any sort of deal on access to the Single Market package will involve the UK making contributions to the EU and being a signatory to all the requirement of the Single Market.

In other words any deal about the Single Market is a continuation of EU Membership.

Remain campaigned and LOST on retention of full access to the Single Market with unlimited free movement of people, and on the economy.

UKIP, Vote Leave and all the others campaigned and won on the issues of: Control of Migration, Trade with the EU & the Rest of the World, Supremacy of the UK Supreme Court, No more Laws or Regulations or Directives from the EU. Regaining Sovereignty and control of our destiny was the message.

Sovereignty means simply the right to make decisions and laws for the running of a country unilaterally.

The use of the word Brexit is deliberately misleading as it beg the question of how it is defined. To even say Brexit means Brexit is nonsense. Just imagine turning to the appropriate page in a dictionary and finding Brexit: noun meaning Brexit! The word is supposed to be an abbreviation for British Exit.

A door to a room may be marked as an exit so a person could be IN or OUT or Partway Out. On the ballot paper there was no mention of Brexit. If I remember correctly it didn’t have a Partway Out option, just Remain in the European Union, or, Leave the European Union.

The result was unequivocal and had it been the other way round the leavers would have been admonished and ridiculed for having the nerve to challenge the establishment and the status quo.

So let’s try and summarise this.

Brexit means British Exit that means Leave that means Sovereignty and the right to make unilateral decisions about how we run this nation. No one voted for partway out and a minority voted to Remain. Membership of the Single Market means membership of the EU and the electorate have clearly rejected it.

The period from the referendum vote until at least the start of the New Year at the earliest or end of March at the latest is a period during which the fanatical Remainiacs will try to override the wishes of the majority of the UK. This period before invoking Article 50 allows those who cannot accept the result to make trouble.

Having surprisingly failed to achieve an endorsement of a project they so wholeheartedly believe in has triggered a grieving process. It has four separate states, roughly defined as: shock, denial and anger; intense introspection; despair and depression; and recovery and acceptance.

Whilst within the process, each stage must be passed through satisfactorily before moving on to the next phase. Unfortunately the long wait until invoking Article 50 causes the grievers to be stuck in the first phase because there is always a chance that the cause of the grief might be removed.

Theresa May and her government must not give in to pressure from those failed opposition MPs and from MPs within her own party and within her cabinet and allow Parliament the opportunity to override the wishes of the people of these nations.

If she did allow this and the result put Parliament at odds with the electorate a situation will have been created that it as dangerous as that leading to the civil war of 1642 between the King and Parliament.

I fear we are in for a rocky time, even after invoking Article 50. When some two years down the road the final ‘deal’ is put to the EU member states at least four Eastern European Nations will vote against it and there is no deal.

The Remainiacs will demand that Parliament be given the opportunity of developing and presenting a new deal, to keep us in the Single Market and to Remain as a partial member. Then we will realise we have been strung along again and the only solution is a unilateral withdrawal. We will wonder why we didn’t just do that in June 2016.

About The Author

Antony Nailer is a Design Engineer & Author, qualified with an HNC in Electronics and BA in Physics & Mathematics. He was on the UKIP Approved Candidates List for the 2015 General Election but is now a lapsed Member.

20 Comments

Diane Parsons
on October 16, 2016 at 3:26 am

I enjoyed reading your article, Mr Nailor. To be clear, I’m not a UKIP voter, but a Tory one and I voted ‘remain’ in the referendum, mainly because I felt that the economy was in good shape and the benefits of remaining far outweighed the negatives of being part of the EU. That said, I’m a pragmatist. it took me about 3 weeks to get to stage 4 in the ‘grieving process’ and I’m now optimistic about the future.

We have a Government who I feel will deliver the best outcome for our country. It might mean compromise on some issues on both sides – but that’s negotiation.

I feel that the EU in its current form is set on self destruction. It is a project for Idealists with ‘one size fits all’ and a Federal Europe at its heart. If the ‘remain’ vote had carried the day, I believe that pressure to leave would have intensified and we would have exited sooner or later.

Despite the criticism from some quarters, Cameron was right to call the Referendum and right to resign. He strengthened the Tory party and I have confidence that they will deliver the best outcome.

Finally, to all those politicians, celebs and media bods trying every which way to get another referendum, I think they need to understand that there are probably many ‘remain’ voters who would vote differently today.

Thank you UKIP for what you have achieved.

Vivian Evans
on October 16, 2016 at 6:00 am

Thank you, Diane, for your post, which I hope won’t be the last. It’s only through discourse that we can settle issues – the alternative would be too horrifying – and that discourse should and must involve everybody who can see beyond the slogans used in the MSM to keep us in line: all of us, regardless of political differences.
And thank you for thanking UKIP – but our task is not yet done, as reports in the papers illustrate daily.

Antony Nailer
on October 16, 2016 at 9:26 am

Diane, I thank you for your observations and I am pleased that you were able to reason your way through the upset.
In a rapidly changing World due to technology, communications and human mobility, our beliefs and prejudices are constantly tested. Politics should evolve and with it our allegiances may need to change.
The principle parties of the UK have also shifted position over many decades but not necessarily in line with the population and more to do with goals set by political science.
I was a right wing Tory voter for a long time but the party did a hard shift to the left with Ted Heath. Maggie’s government was split left and right and while I supported her goals I was infuriated by the left wingers like Ken Clarke and Michael Heseltine who are still causing mischief.
The Labour Party shifted right under Blair and now is split left and right. How can people doggedly stay supporters of a party flag when the ground is so fluid. People should be true to themselves and vote according to what is offered and how well it matches their conscience and personal desires but also bearing in mind that what is good for the country is ultimately good for themselves and their descendants.
Though Maggie hated the ideal of federalism I see that as a solution for the existing problems of the nations of Britain. A system where all the devolved governments together with the self governing islands have representation in a body that looks after super-national interest of the whole while the separate governments, including one for the English, legislate for their individual parts.
Like Viv, I value your contribution.

Antony Nailer
on October 15, 2016 at 10:35 am

I can usually tell when I get close to the truth because there will be a vehement attack on my article. In a recent response the Norway model was used to prove you could have the Single Market without strings. Well, Norway is a member of the European Economic Area and pays a relatively hefty membership fee. It is obliged to implement all EU Laws relating to the Single Market but can play no part in the discussion and development of them. So far it ha been forced to implement three quarters of ALL EU Laws including the working time directive. It is in the Schengen border free area with absolutely no control of its borders with the EU. The Norway option is a pigs ear and they at least would be better off as a full member. Having access to the Single Market means all the baggage we don’t want and membership of the EU in one form or another.

flyer
on October 15, 2016 at 11:24 am

Hear, hear!!

Terry Howard
on October 14, 2016 at 6:13 pm

This article is factually incorrect. It is so wrong that I gave up reading half way through. The author needs to understand why Norway, for example, is in the Single Market, not in the EU and not subject to the ECJ. When he has done this most basic bit of research, he might be able to write a sensible article. This one is risible.

Panmelia
on October 15, 2016 at 11:58 am

Risible, TH? It didn’t make me laugh. Let’s see an article from you explaining the ‘factually correct’ picture. Or perhaps you’re just a Remoaner looking for ways to undermine the Leave vote and unable to do anything but nitpick.

EppingBlogger
on October 14, 2016 at 4:01 pm

Services are generally not covered by the Single Market but there are mutual recognition rights and equivalence standards which mean services are unlikely to be affected.

Sam
on October 14, 2016 at 9:59 pm

There is no ‘free movement in Services’ because teh French and Germans ‘gutted’ the 2006 Services Directive. They protected their own as per usual.

K J Ogilvie
on October 14, 2016 at 10:43 am

It is time that May repeals the fixed term Parliament and goes to the country. Yes it will mean a huge Tory majority but it will allow us to put the likes of Milliband ,Clegg and Soubry to the sword

Rob Bryant, UKIP Taunton
on October 14, 2016 at 10:11 am

May is a remainer, always was, always will be. She could introduce a bill to repeal the 1972 European Communities Act, which would render all subsequent EU legislation null & void. This would force every MP to show their hand to their constituents. Civil servants will babble that it would not render all EU legislation null & void. If she introduced a parallel bill saying yes it does so just get on with it then I would be persuaded that she was not a remainer, but she is so there it lies. However, the EU is collapsing fast and unless she gets a move on she will be the last one sitting at the table in Brussels.

Countrywatch
on October 13, 2016 at 6:33 pm

Excellent article.

Stout Yeoman
on October 13, 2016 at 4:41 pm

It’s possible we are subject to smoke and mirrors at present. A glimmer of hope has been provided by Sir Peter Marshall who has pointed out that “taking account of the framework for its future relationship with the Union” in Art 50(2) does not mean `include’ it in negotiation – it must exist beforehand – and that the framework is not the negotiation therefore. That means, if he is right, that governments are talking behind the scenes to agree the future framework and the negotiation of an agreement setting out the details of withdrawal, the thing everyone getting so exercised about, will follow in due course. It is just possible therefore that statements by François Hollande and others are just posturing for domestic consumption (by the dwindling part of their electorates that are not Eurosceptic) as is much of what May says. The real stuff is already going on behind closed doors. Provided the courts allow the government to trigger article 50 without needing parliamentary approval then remainers will be blind sided by an agreed framework they did not spot coming. Is all that true? No idea but one can dream and hope!

John Freeman
on October 13, 2016 at 3:38 pm

Great article and great comments. Why isn’t Mr Nailor on the TV speaking for UKIP?

Panmelia
on October 13, 2016 at 1:24 pm

Mr Nailer, your name is apt, as you have a remarkable tendency to hit the nail on the head.
The hypocrisy and stupidity on display over Brexit in the House at PMQs yesterday was worse than usual.
Corbyn had the nerve to quote Theresa May putting forward a pro-EU argument when she was Home Secretary, before attacking her on economic issues post-Brexit. I’m sure that anyone could find reams of anti-EU Corbyn quotes if they had the time and patience, but everyone knows what he believed before he became leader and what he said he believed as the Referendum loomed. All that guff about needing to Remain to protect workers’ rights was a pathetic fig leaf and he knew it, we all knew it.
Litle Tim-Tim Farron stood on his hind legs to bleat about Parliament not having a say. May soon put him down, but an additional delight was our view of three MPs directly behind him, looking at each other as Timmy baaa-ed on all unaware; they were grimacing, shaking their heads, rolling their eyes and generally conveying the impression that they longed for him to sit down and shut up. I don’t know what party they are in – probably Tim’s.

Then there are the assorted dimwits who claim that the sovereignty of Parliament is being ignored because there are no consultations with Remainiacs such as themselves. Breathtaking, overweening arrogance.
Did they care about the sovereignty of our Parliament while it was being used as a rubber stamp by the EU for all kinds of laws that did not benefit this country? Where does the sovereignty of Parliament come from? Contrary to some MPs’ beliefs, it does not shine out of their personal orifices, but comes from the people of this country who democratically elect individuals to represent the citizens’ interests and wishes, not their own individual beliefs and biases. Clearly, a distressing number of MPs have forgotten this and writhe torturously to justify their personal interpretations of the Leave vote, convinced that they know what 17.5m voters ‘weren’t aware of’ (as smutty Soubry patronisingly insists) when they put their crosses in the Leave boxes.
May should drop the ‘Brexit means Brexit’ slogan and change it to ‘Leave means Leave’; in other words, those ‘four freedoms’ the EU claims it is founded upon, including free movement, are rejected.
Britain has its own definition of freedom which is the antithesis of the EU’s faulty, false, flawed and failed definition. We always have been the country with superior systems of governance and justice to the rest of Europe, and we still are.

We – like several other countries – are afflicted with too many nice-looking and nice-talking politicians who are under-educated about ethical economic management, particularly changes management! None of them has designed credible CPA(Critical Path Analyses) with pertinent Gantt/Bar Charts for our exiting this EU for optimising appraisals, and, they have so far not instructed civil and public servants to submit such to them.
One question I had been asking and no one has answered is “What are the short-term and long-term beneficial, and, maleficial effects of us(UK) unleashing a UDI(Unilateral Declaration of Independence”.
Remember there over 170 countries outside The European Union.
We are surviving the tragi-comedy of inept and incompetent parliamentary opposition who should be highlighting these errors of omission and commission by our current UK Government.
WHAT HAS UKIP GOT TO OFFER? I have not heard much from “UKIP’s chairmen – Head Office, Regional, and Branch etc.”, and, members of allied executive committees about these sort of issues!

citizenkain
on October 13, 2016 at 11:17 am

Another brilliant article by Mister Nailer!
Well done sir and please keep posting and not just to this site.
We must all of us disseminate the sensible arguments to as many people as possible especially anyone on the fence (so to speak)
Letters to newspapers, articles in newspapers if you can,comments to BBC news programmes and complaints about their bias.
None of this is easy and it is annoying to listen to Soubry/Clegg/Milliband/ and assorted traitors and dream about firing squads.
The reality dear comrades is slog slog and more slog.

flyer
on October 13, 2016 at 9:15 am

I agree with Rhys. Brexit is going to end up being a ridiculous farce, can you imagine parliament agreeing on anything before Article 50 is invoked: not a chance.
If after the referendum, Cameron or May had invoked Article 50 immediately, we’d have had a much cleaner break from the EU. Now we’ll be left with endless wrangling and we’ll probably go down with the EU when it implodes.
Can politicians ever do anything right? Is it incompetence or just outright corruption; I suspect a bit of both.

David
on October 13, 2016 at 9:13 am

Too many traitors allowed their say. Pity that they cannot be sent to a Gulag camp. Maybe their time will come.

Rhys
on October 13, 2016 at 8:49 am

We need to GET OUT and GET OUT NOW !
All that faffing around and begging for the crumbs from Merkel’s table didn’t get Cameron anything – and he was begging from a Pro EU standpoint. So it’s not going to get May anything either.
When will she wake up and pay attention ??!!
We need to leave NOW, on WTO terms, before the next 12 billion or whatever of Danegeld is demanded, and CLAIM BACK OUR 200 MILE Exclusive Economic Zone and all those lovely English and Geordie and Scots and Northern Irish speaking FISH !!!!!!
Once the Scottish , English and Northern Irish fisheries revive can anyone imagine a vote in the future to give them all back again ?

THE FISH needs to be the touchstone, practical as well as legal, issue around which to rally the Nation.
What with Fracking, Fishing, and Farming we could aspire to be self sufficient………
Maybe import tariffs both ways would not be such a bad thing………..encouraging home manufactures and providing a revenue stream for the Treasury ?

Search

Search for:

Subscribe to Our Newsletter

Please leave this field empty

Email *

Sign up to our daily newsletter to receive all the latest from Independence Daily in your inbox.